[Lorric]

It's just that, if there's government involvement, there will be policy.  If there's policy, there will be bureaucracy.  If there's policy and bureaucracy, there will be rigidity that means even the most common sense measures will be ignored - not out of malice, but because rocking the boat is punished in government - and therefore whatever action the rigid, policy-driven bureaucracy takes will make not one whit of sense to any outside observer and will take twice as long and cost twice as much just because it does.

But... why?

[Grizzly]

The downside of trias politica? (the people who make the laws are not the ones enforcing them)

[MP-Ryan]

It's just that, if there's government involvement, there will be policy.  If there's policy, there will be bureaucracy.  If there's policy and bureaucracy, there will be rigidity that means even the most common sense measures will be ignored - not out of malice, but because rocking the boat is punished in government - and therefore whatever action the rigid, policy-driven bureaucracy takes will make not one whit of sense to any outside observer and will take twice as long and cost twice as much just because it does.

But... why?

Because government generally in analogous to a gigantic amorphous blob with fuzzy communication pathways and decentralized decision making that takes care of all the run-of-the-mill agenda items as a matter of routine, but which breaks down completely when anything is out of the norm.

Think of government departments like a large extended family all in one house.  In theory there is a central vision in the way the household runs.  In reality, there are a dozen of different players, all of whom have different priorities and projects.  They may cooperate on some things some of the time, but there is rarely if ever complete consensus, and not every member of the household talks to every other member about what they are doing at all times, so you often and literally get a situation where one half has no idea what the other half is doing at any given moment.

The same is true of most corporations once they reach a certain size.  It's a function of semi-rational actors in a decision system where they have no real decision-making authority and are rigidly bound to an established protocol.

[StarSlayer]

The same is true of most corporations once they reach a certain size.  It's a function of semi-rational actors in a decision system where they have no real decision-making authority and are rigidly bound to an established protocol.

Just look at some of Sony's product lines. 

[Lorric]

Because government generally in analogous to a gigantic amorphous blob with fuzzy communication pathways and decentralized decision making that takes care of all the run-of-the-mill agenda items as a matter of routine, but which breaks down completely when anything is out of the norm.

Think of government departments like a large extended family all in one house.  In theory there is a central vision in the way the household runs.  In reality, there are a dozen of different players, all of whom have different priorities and projects.  They may cooperate on some things some of the time, but there is rarely if ever complete consensus, and not every member of the household talks to every other member about what they are doing at all times, so you often and literally get a situation where one half has no idea what the other half is doing at any given moment.

The same is true of most corporations once they reach a certain size.  It's a function of semi-rational actors in a decision system where they have no real decision-making authority and are rigidly bound to an established protocol.

Thanks for replying. That's a pretty interesting way to look at it.

Occasionally you get situations though where literally the average man on the street could do a better job. Why is it that the government can't? Where they spend huge amounts of money on things which could have been done at a fraction of the cost and to a better standard by just hiring down to Earth people to render that service instead of whatever fancy, extravagant, ridiculously overpriced people they hire instead?

[The E]

Have you read MP-Ryans' explanation? Because he explained this.

Governments are not built for efficiency. There is no incentive for them to be. They are big, they are flawed, and occasionally, they **** up spectacularly, but on balance, they manage to make it work. Hiring "down to Earth people" (What exactly does that mean, anyway? Can you define it in such a way as to enable a government to find these people?) is simply not possible for them.

In this particular case, I can make a good guess as to what happened. At some point, the Government enacted rules concerning the disposition of hardware that has been subverted by attack. Given that governments have a duty to make sure its data is handled securely, the disposal of the hardware carrying that data has to be secure as well. Private companies are happy to provide such services, for a premium of course. That a lot of equipment we know cannot carry infections had to be destroyed as well is probably a case of an overzealous disposal procedure, something you will always find in technology related legislation (Because legislators, as a rule, do not understand cutting-edge technology, and so a "better safe than sorry" approach is standard).

[Lorric]

Have you read MP-Ryans' explanation? Because he explained this.

Governments are not built for efficiency. There is no incentive for them to be. They are big, they are flawed, and occasionally, they **** up spectacularly, but on balance, they manage to make it work. Hiring "down to Earth people" (What exactly does that mean, anyway? Can you define it in such a way as to enable a government to find these people?) is simply not possible for them.

In this particular case, I can make a good guess as to what happened. At some point, the Government enacted rules concerning the disposition of hardware that has been subverted by attack. Given that governments have a duty to make sure its data is handled securely, the disposal of the hardware carrying that data has to be secure as well. Private companies are happy to provide such services, for a premium of course. That a lot of equipment we know cannot carry infections had to be destroyed as well is probably a case of an overzealous disposal procedure, something you will always find in technology related legislation (Because legislators, as a rule, do not understand cutting-edge technology, and so a "better safe than sorry" approach is standard).

I read it.

He talks of the state of affairs, but I don't know why it has to be that way.

Governments have no incentive you say, but they should have a big damn incentive, it's called a global recession, it should be a top priority in my eyes. So why don't they? I would have thought it should be a high priority anyway, but even more so now. The right people in the right places ensuring the smooth running of countries. Perform or be replaced.

Down to Earth meaning the kind of people you or I would hire to solve a problem. We would be looking at cost vs efficiency. Governments give me an impression the line of thinking is simply whoever is the most expensive will be the best when it often doesn't work that way.

Now this is something I can understand, since governments would be all paranoid about computer infiltration, and it's not something I would use for the down to Earth mentality. This is not a problem your average man on the street could do a better job with.

They still managed to hire a security company for an extraordinary cost, that seemed unable to fix what the article makes out to be a simple problem. What clowns did they hire? At least if they were actually being hacked by international hackers, the destruction would have had some merit.

[The E]

Governments have no incentive you say, but they should have a big damn incentive, it's called a global recession, it should be a top priority in my eyes. So why don't they? I would have thought it should be a high priority anyway, but even more so now. The right people in the right places ensuring the smooth running of countries. Perform or be replaced.

Corporations have an incentive to maximize efficiency, because every bit of money saved is money that can be counted as profit or reinvested. Governments do not have any such incentive. Some countries have watchdog organizations, Germany for example has the Bundesrechnungshof, whose mission statement is to audit governmental procedures and spending to point out bad decisions.
Always keep this in mind: A corporation that increases efficiency will be able to perform better against its competitors. States, however, do not have competitors, and by necessity have to sink enormous amounts of money into areas that private corporations do not want to get into (Ever wondered why roads are owned by the public, not rented out to corporations? Ever wondered why British Rail basically went bust after privatization?).

There's also this "The right people in the right places". Who are the right people? The problem states have is that the people they really want do not want to work in government, because they can earn more in private businesses, and aren't tied down by bureaucracy and procedure.

Down to Earth meaning the kind of people you or I would hire to solve a problem. We would be looking at cost vs efficiency. Governments give me an impression the line of thinking is simply whoever is the most expensive will be the best when it often doesn't work that way.

Great, now codify that into a ruleset a government can use to evaluate applicants. Governments fo not always go for the most expensive options, most of them have rather strict rules that force them to get quotes from several people and then choose the cheapest one (EVERY major public contract HAS to be open to offer submissions, in most governments at least). Keep that in mind as well.

Now this is something I can understand, since governments would be all paranoid about computer infiltration, and it's not something I would use for the down to Earth mentality. This is not a problem your average man on the street could do a better job with.

They still managed to hire a security company for an extraordinary cost, that seemed unable to fix what the article makes out to be a simple problem. What clowns did they hire? At least if they were actually being hacked by international hackers, the destruction would have had some merit.

And this is where we do not have enough information to make such statements with confidence.

[Lorric]

Corporations have an incentive to maximize efficiency, because every bit of money saved is money that can be counted as profit or reinvested. Governments do not have any such incentive. Some countries have watchdog organizations, Germany for example has the Bundesrechnungshof, whose mission statement is to audit governmental procedures and spending to point out bad decisions.
Always keep this in mind: A corporation that increases efficiency will be able to perform better against its competitors. States, however, do not have competitors, and by necessity have to sink enormous amounts of money into areas that private corporations do not want to get into (Ever wondered why roads are owned by the public, not rented out to corporations? Ever wondered why British Rail basically went bust after privatization?).

There's also this "The right people in the right places". Who are the right people? The problem states have is that the people they really want do not want to work in government, because they can earn more in private businesses, and aren't tied down by bureaucracy and procedure.

But surely they do? Countries can go bankrupt too. And a global recession wasn't required for this knowlegdge either. Ah, you Germans and your huge words I hope we have an equivalent (agency not word). I've heard the phrase "Government watchdog" thrown around a few times before, but I can't remember in what context off the top of my head. And countries do compete for the big contracts, the multi-billion deals for things like fighter jets and warships. That's the thing that came to mind first, but I'm sure there's more, national trade deals and the like.

That is also an area which should be extremely efficient for me. They take our money to fund the likes of public transport. That money should be spent wisely. Imagine a government that took your money, and made you think it was all being spent on good things, and made you happy to contribute it, because it made your life better and easier.

For the right people, I'm thinking the government get all these politicians together, but they need people who first and foremost bring other skills. I am not for one second going to pretend I could take over and do a better job, but for instance, if you decided to build a sales company, and hired the best salesmen money could buy, but nothing else, the company would fail, you need more than that. The government needs diverse talent. And maybe spending some public money on such talent to prise it away from the businesses would be benefial? I can certainly understand the beauracracy and procedure problem, but could it be done away with? Governments can evolve too.

Great, now codify that into a ruleset a government can use to evaluate applicants. Governments fo not always go for the most expensive options, most of them have rather strict rules that force them to get quotes from several people and then choose the cheapest one (EVERY major public contract HAS to be open to offer submissions, in most governments at least). Keep that in mind as well.

Well that does seem sound. I wonder how these expensive mistakes manage to get through then?

And this is where we do not have enough information to make such statements with confidence.

Fair enough.

[The E]

But surely they do? Countries can go bankrupt too. And a global recession wasn't required for this knowlegdge either. Ah, you Germans and your huge words I hope we have an equivalent (agency not word). I've heard the phrase "Government watchdog" thrown around a few times before, but I can't remember in what context off the top of my head. And countries do compete for the big contracts, the multi-billion deals for things like fighter jets and warships. That's the thing that came to mind first, but I'm sure there's more, national trade deals and the like.

Countries going bankrupt is a very new thing. Also, a slight misconception on your part: Countries do not compete for big armament contracts. Corporations that are heavily subsidized by governments do. When a country looks for a new Jet Fighter to equip its Air Force with, they do not ask the US or the EU to submit bids, they ask Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and EADS to submit them. Small, but very important difference.

That is also an area which should be extremely efficient for me. They take our money to fund the likes of public transport. That money should be spent wisely. Imagine a government that took your money, and made you think it was all being spent on good things, and made you happy to contribute it, because it made your life better and easier.

For the right people, I'm thinking the government get all these politicians together, but they need people who first and foremost bring other skills. I am not for one second going to pretend I could take over and do a better job, but for instance, if you decided to build a sales company, and hired the best salesmen money could buy, but nothing else, the company would fail, you need more than that. The government needs diverse talent. And maybe spending some public money on such talent to prise it away from the businesses would be benefial? I can certainly understand the beauracracy and procedure problem, but could it be done away with? Governments can evolve too.

Governments cannot "evolve" into something more efficient without compromising their core missions. The next best model is corporations, and you absolutely do not want a government that runs on for-profit lines (Unless you're a hardcore randian objectivist, in which case you should probably consider retreating from the political discourse to make things easier for the rest of us).

All these rules and procedures are there for a reason. They are there to remove the human element from the decision-making process. If you staff your government with "reasonable people", without strict oversight, you WILL sooner or later find yourself in trouble, because just a few bad apples can severely ruin your country.
The rules may not make sense to the layman. The rules may force inefficiency. The alternative, however, is worse.

Well that does seem sound. I wonder how these expensive mistakes manage to get through then?

Because they are not mistakes, as far as the people making the decisions are concerned. Keep that in mind: Decisions like this are made by applying procedures and established rules to a situation. Presumably, there's a sound reasoning behind those rules. Most of the time, this works. Sometimes, like here, it blows up in your face.

[MP-Ryan]

The whole point of bureaucracy is to eliminate individual discretion from decision making.  That makes a "common sense" approach impossible.

It's also impossible to operate the government to be oriented towards efficiency.  Public servants are non-partisan, but politicians who set policy are very much partisan and beholder to voters.  A lot of government spending programs do not make fiscal sense, but they make perfect sense as what they are - vote purchases.

Government policy is set in such a way as to keep the elected government in power as long as possible.  That is inherently at odds with notions like efficiency and transparency.  The longer a government is in power, the less incentive for them to change the system.  Meanwhile, unelected public servants who are employed within the system have no power to change policy direction, despite the fact that they know certain policies make no sense.

The elected positions in a government can be counted on to do one thing without fail:  do whatever they can within the boundaries of the law (and sometimes outside of it) to make sure they get elected again.  That rarely coincides with fiscal responsibility, flexibility in operations, or discretion among the public servants that support the government of the day on the operations side.  This is why governments in virtually every democracy can be elected from various positions of the political spectrum, yet all govern in virtually identical ways - from the political position occupied by the majority of voters, also known as "The Center."

[Lorric]

Countries going bankrupt is a very new thing. Also, a slight misconception on your part: Countries do not compete for big armament contracts. Corporations that are heavily subsidized by governments do. When a country looks for a new Jet Fighter to equip its Air Force with, they do not ask the US or the EU to submit bids, they ask Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and EADS to submit them. Small, but very important difference.

Countries have been going bankrupt for centuries. The wiki may be enough for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default

Or if you prefer, the source:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13946.pdf

It's a minor point though I suppose. Even if this global recession was unique, the knowledge would be known now, that a change is needed.

Now on to the overseas contracts, here is the reason this popped into my head:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9656393/David-Cameron-defends-arms-deals-with-Gulf-states.html

David Cameron himself was touring the Middle East pushing that deal. I guess these things are more a partnership between government and business. I think it’s still enough to argue my point. This section near the bottom in particular:

"The defence industry is like any other industry. The Prime Minister has been making the point that we are in a global race.
Other countries will be looking to get these contracts and that is why he is very keen to lend his personal support to try to further the industries of our export companies.”

Governments cannot "evolve" into something more efficient without compromising their core missions. The next best model is corporations, and you absolutely do not want a government that runs on for-profit lines (Unless you're a hardcore randian objectivist, in which case you should probably consider retreating from the political discourse to make things easier for the rest of us).

All these rules and procedures are there for a reason. They are there to remove the human element from the decision-making process. If you staff your government with "reasonable people", without strict oversight, you WILL sooner or later find yourself in trouble, because just a few bad apples can severely ruin your country.
The rules may not make sense to the layman. The rules may force inefficiency. The alternative, however, is worse.

But maybe there could be a melding of the two ideas, there’s no need for extremes like letting the sick and elderly die off because they’re a drain on profits, which is the kind of counter I’ve heard when someone says “The government should be run like a business”. But maybe more like a business, with a more business mindset. Instead of cutting away the “unprofitable” people or squeezing benefits and the like, looking instead to efficiency, either by the government making money, or making it easier for people to make money so there’s more money in the tax pot. And certainly cutting wasted expenditure as much as possible. A reprioritising on this I really believe is needed, especially if as you say there is no incentive for governments to be efficient, then there needs to be one. There’s no need for radical change, but a change of focus on what’s important. I’m not even the kind of person who gets angry when the government sends out some money in overseas aid, but I do get annoyed and sometimes genuinely angry when money is spent that doesn’t need to be. Like when the politicians attend functions and meetings and spend way, WAY too much on food and hotels and/or the building the meeting/function is conducted in. I have no problem with these people being comfortable on such occasions, but they’re not royalty, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

I once really considered opening a thread on Barack Obama’s $100,000,000 vacation, but in the end decided it wasn’t my place not being an American. But a British equivalent would have had me climbing the walls!

I fully agree with cutting out the human element, it goes double for government. It’s a shame it has to be that way, but I fully agree that it does. But what do you think about a shift in focus towards efficiency? No more unnecessary expenditure. And by unnecessary I mean in the framework of good government, not the extremes like cutting off help to the disabled and letting them die and the like.

Because they are not mistakes, as far as the people making the decisions are concerned. Keep that in mind: Decisions like this are made by applying procedures and established rules to a situation. Presumably, there's a sound reasoning behind those rules. Most of the time, this works. Sometimes, like here, it blows up in your face.

And this goes back to what I said about the all-salesman company. The people making the decisions are the wrong people to be making them because they are not qualified for such things. They may have had a set of rules to follow, but I question their ability to actually apply the procedures properly.

[Lorric]

The whole point of bureaucracy is to eliminate individual discretion from decision making.  That makes a "common sense" approach impossible.

It's also impossible to operate the government to be oriented towards efficiency.  Public servants are non-partisan, but politicians who set policy are very much partisan and beholder to voters.  A lot of government spending programs do not make fiscal sense, but they make perfect sense as what they are - vote purchases.

Government policy is set in such a way as to keep the elected government in power as long as possible.  That is inherently at odds with notions like efficiency and transparency.  The longer a government is in power, the less incentive for them to change the system.  Meanwhile, unelected public servants who are employed within the system have no power to change policy direction, despite the fact that they know certain policies make no sense.

The elected positions in a government can be counted on to do one thing without fail:  do whatever they can within the boundaries of the law (and sometimes outside of it) to make sure they get elected again.  That rarely coincides with fiscal responsibility, flexibility in operations, or discretion among the public servants that support the government of the day on the operations side.  This is why governments in virtually every democracy can be elected from various positions of the political spectrum, yet all govern in virtually identical ways - from the political position occupied by the majority of voters, also known as "The Center."

Ah, Ryan. This managed to slip through the net between my reply to The E.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard the word bureaucracy used in anything approaching a positive way. Not ever. Quite a startling revelation. The word has actually acquired a meaning something akin to "bull****" with me. Maybe precisely because it's a common sense blocker.

  ...there's got to be something better, surely, that can mix common sense with standard practice. Forgive me if I don't understand why you can't have both if that is the case. Bureaucracy has frustrated me for years and years...

However, I really don't see why efficiency, why spending and saving the people's money efficiently can't garner votes. I'd vote for such a government. Would you? At the end of the day, no matter what someone stands for, surely they'd get behind that, measures that make your everyday life easier?

Efficiency and transparency come extremely high on my list of priorities. Why wouldn't such a government simply sweep through elections built on such a foundation?

[NGTM-1R]

...there's got to be something better, surely, that can mix common sense with standard practice.

Why?

[Lorric]

Why not?

[NGTM-1R]

Why not?

Doesn't work like that. You've stated there must be a better system. That's your point. If you can't defend it, it's meaningless.

You've made an argument, now defend it. (The inadequacy of the existing system is not a defense, btw, because it's not a dualistic argument. The current system being inadequate does not mean it is not still the best one we have, unfortunately.)

[Lorric]

Doesn't work like that.

Umm... no. I'm not going to dance to your tune on your terms with your cherry picked sentence. Goodbye.

[Nuke]

this thread makes me want to watch brazil again.

[The E]

Lorric, if you're making certain claims, it is upon you to substantiate them. You're saying "There must be a better way". We're asking you to define what that better way would look like in practice. Arguing from an idealist perspective can only go so far, you know. Yes, we know the current system has its downsides, but it's the best system humanity has come up with over the past couple millennia.

We're asking you to think about how to implement your ideas because we would like to see you identify the points where your ideas run into problems, and see how you address them.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm not going to dance to your tune on your terms with your cherry picked sentence. Goodbye.

Okay!

Your point and your posting are now meaningless! You have no argument and refuse to engage in rational argumentation! Everyone should ignore you! You'll probably get banned or monkeyed as being white noise!

I'm cool with that. Are you? No? Then answer the question as it was originally posed.